The intelligencer. [volume] (Lexington, Mo.) 1887-1891, 1887-05-28

rom unOef cover, anu luuuISoo
open and condemnatory criticism OF
the county court. A criticism, 100, 30
unfair, 50 calculated to deceive, ana at
the same time SO foreign in every par.
to the question he himself nfst
and so remote from anything
called for Git indeed anything was
called for) in my article, that l am
forced to conclude hat the mot1ve
which actuated its PRONUNCIATION Is
not discovered IN the COM
m%unicatiOn. =.
Let US examine the last article a lit
tie. He says:-"l was guardiul III
that brief letter addressed to Mr.: w..
B. Steele, clerk of the county and It's
ministerial Officer" etc. Now, in tact,
the county clerk is not sits ministerial
officer" The duties OF all county
officers are more or less ministerial:
But the ministerial officer, or l should
say, tribunal of the county, is the
county court. The county clerk cannot
bind the county in any contract; can
not legally disburse a dollar OF It's
money. His duties, though ministerial,
are purely clerical, except in a few
cases in regard to school moneys and
the issuance of licenses in vacation,
etc. He has no voice or vote on any
matter coming up in the administration
of county affairs. The county court
is the chief, and l might say, the sole
financial agent of the county; and OF
the money III the county treasury has
in-so far as its disbursement is con-
| cerned almost absolute control, OF
course subject t the regulations OF the
law.
The addressing of his letter to Mr..
| Steele does not mend the matter. lie
wrote the letter, it passed out OF his
hands by his own voluntary act, II
he saws of it himself in his attempted
denial, "Ny letter was public property
when it passed from my hands," How
does this comport with his other state
ment but a few lines further Oh, that
81 can be held in no wise responsible
for this publicity If by his OWL
act he made his letter public property
how can he escape responsibility? He
speaks of the members of the court as
having possibly all Exaggerated con-
ception of the elevation and functlonE
of their Office and their control ovel
others" If any member OF the county
court has attempted to exercise tn
functions of any other office or contro
any other officer in the exercise of the
functions of his Office 1 have failed te
, hear of it., and the treasurer fails to
relate the circumstance; but he mus
remember that the law makes it tn
) duty of the county court TO exercise
supervision over all other county OH
: GERS connected with the revenue, as
for instance, it makes it the duty OF tn
court to ~"ascertain by actual examina
ton and count, the amount OF balance
and funds in the hands of said treas
urer" at the seni-annual settlement
, which the treasurer is required to max
ut the LIST and Sd regular terms OF tn
J county court in each year. All othe
officers of the county are required
v settle with the court. So it appear
. that not every time the court exercise
' some control over the affairs
. the county officers does it display al
Exaggerated conception OF the ele
walton and functions of the office,
and the gentleman must remem
Der that the county officer VIII
attempts to exercise a control oyt
q the county court, either by undue pc
tinacity before the court, or by unJu
criticism based on distorted facts, ma
y be himself guilty of a somewhat "exa'
y gerated conceptions" but, Of cours
% Exceptional ability may excuse exec
tional assumption"
r. Now, to come to the unfair criticls
and distortion of facts in the secoi
. 8 article which has provoked all this fro
VI me. The astounding charge is MAJ
g. that the present county court shave Ell
m larged upon the rate OF compromli
d. not less than 85 per cent?" a stateIne
~ which I here declare is without al
foundation whatever in tact, and
er wish to call especial attention to t
illustration offered by him who d
Ias claims all personal feeling, aud WI
~ pretends a fairness and candidness abo
" measure. He says:-"We paid a boz
* of $1,000 with interest on January 4
he 1886, with S1.475; and we paid a bo
e. of similar amount and tenor on Ap
18th, under the new settlement, a
cost of Salts &c." l state that su
Q is not the fact. II any such bond v
IN compromised on January 4th, 1886,
in anything near that price, it was a
per cent. bond; and then allowing t
all of the coupons we're still attacf
MO since June LIST, 1876, each coupon a
the became due bore 6 per cent, 8
ay. would in the ten years mount to alb
81, 1850, which, at a discount, would
reduced to about the amount stated
ing him. Of course it must have bee
bls bond of that character which the G
t ia tleman refers TO. Now a ten per CT
oon bond commencing to run at the 50
time and continuing for eleven ye
and three months, as would be
sir case he mentioned, would amount
pod about 81, 800, and of course the
in named must have been q ten per C
- bond. What can be thought Of
'isn statement, made by q man, possess
the all the mean of Information, prom
The gated to the people as a fact, whic
9th based on a comparison of two &
- GissimiIar bonds, without any men
"e of their difference, but that it wal
the tended to create q false impressi'
ten Think of it, to take the price paid
1aye q six per cent. bond which has rur
ten years and compare it with
price paid for a ten per cent. |
lois which has run for eleven years
was three months, in order to base 9 call
ton OF the per centage of whs
grandiloGuently terms 1.-The enls
LHI. ment of the rate OF composition"
actual amount due on n is all
81, 900 more than the amount due
,nob the other to start with. And to tie
g public that the prices were pait
otlce bonds OF similar amount and tel
Col Can facts be distorted further?
the While the court has paid
with value for certain bonds, which had
that reduced to judgments, yet they
efec- t mSiah J aiscnunt was obtainad a
'hich w., W. $50 Iot. thot "a to COW tho
iwer, oaU..antad for tho nnrcbase IF a
want an ont,pudina ;rdn,
'hich o .hon ,hnr aho,
court $3.50 Fla ooTnty doht
sturb " .ns "-nt,h;S ohout 500 ono y
and, in order to effect the t
- It became necessary to make
NV purchase ct all of the judgr
mae controlled by the other
o mas and while some judgments were
ad dif- tracted to be paid for at par, yet
,,ntu others there vas 3 discount,
ray made, when taken altogether. 6
. 81 count Of about 7 per cent. OF
# The whole sum OF the judgments. OF
ox;st facts the treasurer was also cogn
80 and they ought to have been to
hen Kim if he wished only to give a CT
Ia. version cf the matter. AS to the
nmd pose tor which the special tern
,os;na called, his statement, like al! the o
80 I've IS the perverted truth. did W
- pay the funds to save the cost o
],atio, The other judges preferred 10 bl
go judgments, and the warrants in
80" ton were drawn for their pure